JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. V. P. Singh, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener.

3. Heard Mr. Raj Vardhan, counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.

4. I.A. No. 9211 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the intervener, namely, Kaushalya Devi who claims to be wife of Late Lalu Prasad. Counsel for the intervener submits that the case before the learned court below has been instituted on the basis of order dated 7th April, 2004 passed in B.S.E. Case No. 02 of 1997, wherein certain amount was directed to be paid to Lalu Prasad, who expired during the pendency of this case and the intervener is the wife of Lalu Prasad. He submits that the interest of the intervener is directly affected and accordingly intervener may be permitted to assist this Court.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection, if the intervener is permitted to assist this Court.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the intervener is permitted to assist this Court on the basis of materials available on record and is added as Respondent No. 3. Office is directed to carry out necessary correction in the cause title. Accordingly, I.A. No. 9211 of 2017 is disposed of.

7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have been heard at length.

8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed for challenging the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner in B.S.E. Case No. 01 of 2005 including order dated 28.08.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro by which summons have been issued against the petitioner. He submits that order dated 26.02.2010, by which non-bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner, is also under challenge. He further submits that order dated 28.08.2009 was challenged by the petitioner in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2010, but the same has been dismissed on account of delay in filing the criminal revision and due to non-filing of petition for condonation of delay. The order passed by the revisional court is also under challenge.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the merits of the case, submits that the entire criminal proceeding in the present case has been instituted on the basis of order dated 7th April, 2004 in B.S.E. Case No. 02 of 1997 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City under Section 28(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (now Jharkhand Shops and Establishments Act, 2001) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1953) and the said order was forwarded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro vide letter dated 10.08.2005 for recovery of the amount accessed and found payable to the applicant (Lalu Prasad) of B.S.E. Case No. 02 of 1997.

10. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 28 of said Act, any amount directed to be paid under the said section shall be recovered in the prescribed manner. He further refers to Rule 23 framed under the aforesaid Act of 1953 (Now Jharkhand Shops and Establishments Rules, 2001) which provides for the manner of recovery of the amount directed to be paid. He submits that the Rule 23 of the said Act of 1953 clearly provides that the amount is to be recovered, as if, it was a fine imposed by the concerned Magistrate. He has further referred to provisions of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submits that the procedure for the purposes of recovery of fine has been provided under the said section and as per the said section, there is a clear provision that the amount is to be recovered by issuance of a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any property belonging to the offender.

11. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the instant case, as per the order passed under the aforesaid Act of 1953, the offender is Bokaro Steel City, Central Consumers Co-